# C_2018427EN.01008501.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/85

---

Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Helbert v EUIPO

(Case T-548/18)

(2018/C 427/112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection board; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection board; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the composition and consistency of the Selection Board presented irregularities, directly resulting in a lack of coherence of the evaluation and a violation of the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment and objectivity of the evaluations, in breach of articles 3.1 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the composition and consistency of the Selection Board presented irregularities, directly resulting in a lack of coherence of the evaluation and a violation of the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment and objectivity of the evaluations, in breach of articles 3.1 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board did not undertake a comparative assessment of the candidate, in breach of the obligation to observe the principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and objectivity of the evaluation, according to art. 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board did not undertake a comparative assessment of the candidate, in breach of the obligation to observe the principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and objectivity of the evaluation, according to art. 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance in the ‘specific competency-based interview’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance in the ‘specific competency-based interview’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board infringed the Notice of Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 as well as principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and the objectivity of the evaluation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board infringed the Notice of Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 as well as principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and the objectivity of the evaluation.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 C 9 A, p. 1

---